It sounds like one of those stories you can safely ignore: The U.S. birth rate has hit a record low, led by a big drop in the portion of immigrant women having babies.

This development doesn’t directly affect anybody, since it’s one of those long-term societal trends that occurs in small increments and doesn’t change the unemployment rate, the price of gas, the direction of the stock market or any of the big economic forces that make our lives better or worse today. And since the trend is strongest among immigrants, it sounds like maybe this is something happening in a shadowy part of the economy that doesn’t matter all that much.

But it does matter, and if the trend persists, it could mean lower living standards for most Americans in the future.

Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)

Violations will be deleted and you may be banned. Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.

Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.

Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls
to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They
reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.

It’s the tragedy of the commons; at some point the gravy train runs out of tracks, and we’re going to have a lot of sad or angry people who were told the train would take them all they way to nirvana without them having to lay some track themselves. But don’t worry, reform and change are most likely when someone hits rock bottom.

The vast majority of college students I encounter will mock and scorn when told that
we’re in a Demographic Winter and not suffering overpopulation. The population controllers have successfully brainwashed several generations!

Funny how this comes out around the same time as the CDC tells us that the abortion rate is falling, Are people having less sex, preventing pregnancies more effectively or is there a problem with the data? Of course, I’m not necessarily suggesting there is a contradiction, as many European countries having lower birth and abortion rates than the U.S.

LibertyBelle, both. Economic downturns seem to have a small immediate effect, but birth rates globally are falling, rapidly in developed countries. Europe is below replacement rate and their populations will begin shrinking once the figures catch up to to the vast increase in lifespan in the 20th century. It is something big, and it will have profound effects on societies. As Jamie mentioned, Japan is in for a real problem. Infrastructure will have to contract as less people use them, and elderly people will have trouble finding care because instead of three kids sharing the cost of living between them, one kid or another family’s single child is. It means we will likely be less wealthy, barring some unforeseen technological advances. The most grievous cost will be intergenerational strife, as it begins to dawn on younger generations that their parents ordered the entire welfare system on kicking the can down the road and the children paying their debts for them (Medicare, Social Security have no “lockboxes”). Many people do not see this perfect storm setting up as prosperous countries face debt problems, bad economies, adopt national health care systems shortly followed by open calls for euthanasia. Take note Liberty, it’s the biggest story not being addressed. Progressives believe in materialism, but they do not realize wealth and prosperity come only from people, and having less people in the world does not mean we all get a bigger piece of the pie. There is no free lunch.

There has to be some way that we, as a society, can make having a bigger family viable. I have two kids, and financially and emotionally I sincerely doubt I could handle another. I’m not that rare. If it’s important to raise our birth rates, then we have to make it viable. That would be a better way of going about it than accusing people of being selfish for not wanting more children.

DeniseNoe saysIs there a way to revive the agricultural society that is friendly to large families?

Denise — we don’t need an agricultural society to have large families. The Greatest Generation — the parents of the Baby Boom — were not an agricultural society. They were an industrial society. We need what they had.

The Greatest Generation had two things:
1) A willingness to self-sacrifice. They survived the Great Depression and then lined up to serve in World War II.
2) Optimism in the future. They believed that they could make a better world for their children and grandchildren. So they had the children and went to work at it.

The Baby Boomers were an optimistic bunch, but not given to self-sacrifice. So they worked hard for their own future, but failed to have children…. two, at the most.

LibertyBelle, I do believe everyone can afford at least one baby unless they are completely and utterly destitute. That’s not to say I think people should be forced or shamed into having kids until they are ready, but even living far below the poverty line like I do, being divorced and having no family to depend on, I make do and take care of my two with very little help from my ex-wife. It’s hard but not impossible, it’s not fun but it works. I just wish there was something we could do to make it less of a desperation struggle for poor people.

Del, I don’t think that people that don’t have many children are always doing so because they don’t want to “self-sacrifice”. Some of us are simply not financially or emotionally capable of raising more children. It’s not being selfish, it’s realizing that you would be harming all your children if you added another one. Why should I have three kids, end up on public assistance and risk my mental health issues getting worse with that stress, when I can have two kids and be able to raise them with no government help and be able to take care of my health?

You can’t wait for the culture to turn around for us. But there are people in your own parish — Joyful families, with lots of kids. Get to know them and see how they do it. The basic secret: They are much happier with less stuff.

Soon enough, the government will run out of borrowing power, and the hand-outs will stop. Social Security is not going to be there for most of us. A market crash is likely. The elderly folks with plenty of grown kids will survive in some comfort. The rest will end up lonely and poor in nursing homes. Indeed, nursing homes are already filled with such people.

JackBorsch says:Del, I don’t think that people that don’t have many children are always doing so because they don’t want to “self-sacrifice”. Some of us are simply not financially or emotionally capable of raising more children. It’s not being selfish, it’s realizing that you would be harming all your children if you added another one. Why should I have three kids, end up on public assistance and risk my mental health issues getting worse with that stress, when I can have two kids and be able to raise them with no government help and be able to take care of my health?

I said that, in general, the widespread mood is one of selfish thinking. Most families, with a kid or two or none and a big promotion coming up, think of the wonderful toys they can buy. They don’t want to be “burdened” with another child. And that’s why America and Europe have a demographic crisis.

You offer a contrast — You’d love to have another child. But after some careful consideration, you have discerned that it is not physically/emotionally/financially prudent at this time. Your attitude is already very different from the world’s. Perhaps in a few years, you can consider bringing another child (while your buddies at work are considering buying a bigger boat).

I never met a person at the end of his-or-her life who said, “I wish I had not had so many children.” But I know quite a few (myself included) who wish that we had more.

“You can’t wait for the culture to turn around for us. But there are people in your own parish — Joyful families, with lots of kids. Get to know them and see how they do it. The basic secret: They are much happier with less stuff.”

I don’t have “stuff”. I don’t care about stuff. I care about feeding my kids, that they have healthcare and I have healthcare, and that we have a safe place to live and clothes on our backs. I don’t care if we have the latest video games or phones, I don’t even have a phone anymore! I mean, being happy with less is a good goal, but it’s not about being happy sometimes, it’s about survival.

“You offer a contrast — You’d love to have another child. But after some careful consideration, you have discerned that it is not physically/emotionally/financially prudent at this time. Your attitude is already very different from the world’s. Perhaps in a few years, you can consider bringing another child (while your buddies at work are considering buying a bigger boat).”

Actually, I wouldn’t “love” to have another child. I’m not naturally a good parent, it’s very hard on me, and I am very poor. I think it would be nice if my kids had another sibling for their sake (I don’t have family to depend on even though I have a lot of siblings, I would like my kids to have family when they are older). But it’s just not doable for me. And I am not rare, I know other people in the same situation since I live in a very low income neighborhood. I just think acting like the demographic problem is one of pure selfishness is not correct.

This is an interesting report when assimilated with the concept that larger families tend to vote conservative more than smaller families and that the latino community is becoming more tolerant of social factors such as equal rights for gays.

I guess the GOP are going to have to run really hard and really fast if they hope to capture the latino voter.

Well, it depends when you are talking about the Latino vote. Some Latino communities are pretty heavily Catholic, so the GOP could probably win more of them. The fact that they don’t probably has something to do with immigration policies in my opinion.

Blue Velvet Hmmm says:“The basic secret: They are much happier with less stuff.”1/5 kids in poverty in the US. Should their parents just sell some more stuff, then?

I was talking about married parents accepting more children into their home.

The 1/5 of kids living in poverty do so because their fathers have left their mothers — or their parents were never married in the first place. Single-parenthood is the primary indicator of poverty. The solution to poverty is that parents should marry before they have sex and children, and parents should stay married for a lifetime.

But this topic is not about poverty and single-parent homes; it is about married couples having children. America needs more children.

Del says:December 5, 2012 at 6:08 pmDeniseNoe saysIs there a way to revive the agricultural society that is friendly to large families?Denise — we don’t need an agricultural society to have large families. The Greatest Generation — the parents of the Baby Boom — were not an agricultural society. They were an industrial society.

(Denise) The Baby Boom was a surge that was caused by the men coming back from WWII. In general, agrarian societies are FAR more likely to have large families.

Can we return to being an agrarian society?

This would also help promote chastity. There are other advantages. For example, rural areas tend to be low crime.

JackBorsch says:Well, it depends when you are talking about the Latino vote. Some Latino communities are pretty heavily Catholic, so the GOP could probably win more of them. The fact that they don’t probably has something to do with immigration policies in my opinion.

Absolutely. Obama lost ground with women and self-identified Catholics; two blocs that he relied on to win in 2008. He would have lost in 2012, except that the Latino community voted overwhelmingly for him… and this was entirely due to the Republican’s insane tunnel-vision over justice and immigration.

Working families with children deserve our support. It is not their fault that America does not provide an easy way for them to enter the country legally. It is our fault, and we need to own it and fix it.

Republicans alienated the one major group that is predominantly pro-family, pro-life and pro-work. Latinos are the one group that is focused on self-sacrifice and making a better life for their children. And they HAD to vote for Obama to get it.

“The 1/5 of kids living in poverty do so because their fathers have left their mothers — or their parents were never married in the first place. Single-parenthood is the primary indicator of poverty. The solution to poverty is that parents should marry before they have sex and children, and parents should stay married for a lifetime. ”

That”s not fair Del. I’m divorced and a single parent because my marriage was quite abusive, some people can’t stay married when it’s not healthy.

We do agree on the GOP and the way they treat the Latino voting block for sure. It’s very shortsighted of them to alienate a minority group that would probably naturally vote their way if they would change their views on immigration.

One thing that irritates me about GOP immigration policies is that they refuse to look at it rationally. I mean, take Cuban-American immigration policies for example (I am half-Cuban, my mother and her family came here in the late sixties I believe). It’s been extremely easy for Cubans to legally get to the US since at least the fifties, basically all you have to do is show up if you are a Cuban and you can automatically get amnesty. And has easy policies for Cuban immigration damaged the country? Heck no, the Cuban-American culture does not have high crime, puts a lot into the country with jobs, etc. Many of them own businesses and they are a very family oriented culture. Immigrants from other Latin countries would do the same, but harsh immigration policies make that very difficult and keep them in poverty rather than letting them contribute to the country, build businesses, educate their children, etc.

“The solution to poverty is that parents should marry before they have sex and children, and parents should stay married for a lifetime.”
People who are financially stable are more likely to get married in the first place. People who receive solid educations and remain sober are more likely to become financially stable. Premarital sex=poverty is far, far too simplistic.
“But this topic is not about poverty and single-parent homes; it is about married couples having children.”
Again you seem to assume that marriage confers immediate economic stability. Not true.
“America needs more children.”
America needs to take better care of the children it has.

JackBorsch says: That”s not fair Del. I’m divorced and a single parent because my marriage was quite abusive, some people can’t stay married when it’s not healthy.

You’ve done this to me twice now, Jack. I’ve stated a general principle, and you act like I am attacking you personally.

I’m sorry for the loss of your marriage and I am glad that you do not have to suffer more abuse. But we both agree that families are typically better off, financially and emotionally, when the mother and father are married and living in the home together. We both agree that the current rate of divorce is too high for our culture to survive.

“You’ve done this to me twice now, Jack. I’ve stated a general principle, and you act like I am attacking you personally.”

Sorry I was giving that impression. I don’t think you are attacking me and I’m not offended, I just think there’s always another aspect to generalities that sometimes people don’t take into account. It’s just kind of a sensitive subject for some people too, me included.

“I’m sorry for the loss of your marriage and I am glad that you do not have to suffer more abuse. But we both agree that families are typically better off, financially and emotionally, when the mother and father are married and living in the home together. We both agree that the current rate of divorce is too high for our culture to survive.”

I do agree that couples tend to be more financially stable than single parents. That’s backed up with statistics. I wonder if it’s more of a “what came first, chicken or the egg” type of thing though. Like BV pointed out, people are more likely to get married when they are already financially stable. And also, people are more likely to have successful marriages and have good financial acumen when they already come from a childhood where their parents had these things. It kind of makes a vicious cycle of poverty and single parenthood when children grow up to emulate what they have seen, that’s part of the reason me and most of my neighborhood are in the situations that we are in, we were simply never taught better and didn’t start off with the tools to get us on the right track. That’s what I am talking about when I talk about how we as a society can make it more likely for people to be able to raise bigger families, some social classes are already starting at a huge disadvantage and are not likely to see a way out. I don’t think it’s selfishness, it’s just how the culture is set up. And I am not sure what there is that can be done about it.

You can’t wait for the culture to turn around for us. But there are people in your own parish — Joyful families, with lots of kids. Get to know them and see how they do it. The basic secret: They are much happier with less stuff.

Okay, I am going to address this as calmly as possible. I am absolutely joyful. I have a great marriage. We got married way before “the culture” dictates, we don’t have “stuff” and what we do have, we’re not really attached to. Heck, we don’t even have a television set. We drive beater cars. No debt. We’re comfortable, but not rolling in dough. We’re definitely not living how the culture dictates.

The point remains that in this economy, the way the world is right now, it is a little scary to have kids. Like Jack said. one or two won’t bankrupt you, but we want more. And even having one kid, with my health issues, it’s scary. The fact is, no matter how frugal we are, the economy is prohibitive to families.

Reading over these comments I see a common thread of fear and hopelessness. A fear that parenting will be too difficult and a hopelessness that parenting can ever be manageable. . this coming from people who are in every way better off from preceding generations. . what are we all so afraid of that our grandparents and great-grandparents weren’t? Why do we lack hope? Why are we so comfortable in our fear and hopelessness? Is this how we give ourselves absolution. . a pass on what we know we should be doing with our lives? Sad. . sad. . sad. .

My husband and I have eight children ages 7 to 27. We chose to forgo birth control and trust the God that He would provide. This meant that we had to do our part which meant developing a work ethic, learning to be better parents with each child etc. Our job is not done but I can sincerely say that the fact that I have some wisdom and knowledge today and am approached by others for advice is tied directly to being a parent.
When I hear or read people say that someone out there needs to make it easier to have more children or that they just can’t handle the ones they have or they can’t afford any more, I am hearing the same excuses that I’ve heard since we became parents! Yes, our government is laying a heavy burden on family with taxes and other over regulation but if we would choose now to have children and raise them responsibly to grow up and live moral, Christian lives we could change this nation in one generation!
Right now, I have a son in Korea teaching English to children. Before that he worked in a very tough outdoor program for kids on the brink of felony convictions. He has better “parenting skills” than I ever had.
Our eldest daughter lives and works in a maternity home for moms in crisis. She also cooks at a homeless shelter.
Our next daughter teaches Bible clubs in public schools after school. She also serves and teaches in a Christian preschool.
Our next daughter teaches Irish Step dance to homeschoolers, volunteers as a church secretary and blesses those who need help in the home who have young children.
Our two teen sons work hard cleaning our church and helping keep the roof repaired.
Our 11 year old daughter just spent an entire day being a mothers helper to an overwhelmed mother of 5.
And our youngest son just happily goes through his days smiling a lot and giving testimony that being the youngest of eight is a wonderful thing to be because he is so loved!
20 years ago when they were all a lot younger and we had very little money, I needed encouragement and a vision for the future. There were very few who had anything positive to say about me having another baby (including all our relatives). Now, those same elderly relatives who are lonely and have few or no children, want to see us and be blessed by our children.
There is never a convenient time to have another child and very few people can “afford” another one…but that’s not the point. The point is that children are invaluable.
I am looking forward to a very blessed old age.
And, btw, we are not Catholic…we consider ourselves to be “passionate protestants!”
Jill Farris

Well, for me anyway, I don’t lack hope. Courage is doing what you know to be right in spite of your fear. And it’s okay to have fear. One can have fear, but still hope. I’m simply acknowledging that right now, there’s probably a reason many families are not having kids (the same reason a lot of businesses are not hiring – many are holding their breaths to see what happens). I’m not waiting for someone else to make it better, but rather trying to communicate that the future indeed looks bleak – and economically speaking, this economy is way, way worse than when my parents were having kids. Yeah, they were poor too, but they had a better economy to grow in. They didn’t have trillions of debt already weighing their yet-to-be-born infants down.

Jill thanks for your encouragement. It is nice to hear that big families can work.

Those of you who say the Republicans are short-sighted on illegal immigration must be either a lot younger than me or don’t remember your history. The Amnesty Act of 1986 passed under the Republican President Ronald Reagan legalized a
“mere” three million illegals. That number grew exponentially through chain migration, high birth rates in that population (paid for by Americans who themselves felt they couldn’t afford more children) and increased numbers of illegal immigrants. Republican presidents as well as Democrat ones have consistently refused to close the borders and to cut off aid to illegals. Latino and others who “blame” Republicans are either ill educated or completely ungrateful or both.

3 likes

Who Is Jill Stanek?

Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.